Where are TSO instruments required?

[noname]

Are TSO Instruments required in certificated aircraft? Altimeter,
airspeed , anything.....

If yes, where is this specified?

I've looked in the FARs and haven't been able to find this yet.

Any help would be appreciated.


Thanks

[jmk]

The key words are "not for hire." For a part 91 aircraft (i.e. most of
us here) operating not for hire (i.e. not carrying passengers or cargo
for pay) there is very little TSO requirement. I know the transponder
must be TSO'd (although the transponder itself is not absolutely
required). I was thinking that there is another piece of avionics that
requires a TSO, but if there is, I can't recall it at the moment. All
the regular stuff (radios, headsets, etc.) do not.

When you get into aircraft operating "for hire" (which does NOT include
the C-172 you rent at the local FBO) then TSO is required for a lot of
the equipment. Otherwise the ONLY advantage to a TSO approval is that
it is automatically "data acceptable to the administrator" and may make
the STC a bit easier to get if you are putting something unusual into
your plane.

[Michael]

> Are TSO Instruments required in certificated aircraft? Altimeter,
> airspeed , anything.....

Not unless it's used in operations for hire (rentals and instruction
don't count).

The problem is, if they're not TSO'd, on what basis are you installing
them? To be installed as an aircraft part, whatever you are installing
must be a standard part (not applicable to instruments - we're talking
hardware, wire, etc.), a TSO'd part, a TC'd/STC'd part, a PMA'd part,
or a part manufactured by the owner-operator. Otherwise it's not an
aircraft part, and will require a field approval.

So let's say you want to install a non-TSO'd altimeter, radio, whatever
into your certificated airplane.

Sometimes it's easy. Let's say you want to install a KX-170B. It's
not TSO'd. But it's manufactured as an aircraft part, with FAA
authorization. No problem.

Or let's say it's a Magellan 5000 VFR GPS. It has (believe it or not)
a Beech PMA. No TSO, but no problem either. It's an aircraft part,
the installation is considered a minor alteration these days (at least
in some FSDO's), so no worries.

But what if it's not? What if the manufacturer has no authorization
from the FAA of any kind? Not going to happen. Can't install it. Not
unless you get an STC or field approval.

Michael

[mikem]

jmk wrote:
> ...I was thinking that there is another piece of avionics that
> requires a TSO, but if there is, I can't recall it at the moment. All
> the regular stuff (radios, headsets, etc.) do not.

ELT?

[Gerry Caron]

"mikem" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> jmk wrote:
>> ...I was thinking that there is another piece of avionics that
>> requires a TSO, but if there is, I can't recall it at the moment. All
>> the regular stuff (radios, headsets, etc.) do not.
>
> ELT?
>
Sort of. You need to read the fine print.

Generally, TSOs are not required, except for IFR-approved GPS receivers.
The three "gray-area" items are ELTs, altitude encoders, and transponders.
The rules require they must "meet the requirements" of the specific TSO. So
you can use one of these without a TSO, but the onus is on you to convince
the FAA that they meet the TSO requirements. The TSO is "approved data"
that shows the compliance. So in the end, it's a lot easier to just buy
TSO'd versions of these items.

Gerry

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:

> The problem is, if they're not TSO'd, on what basis are you installing
> them? To be installed as an aircraft part, whatever you are installing
> must be a standard part (not applicable to instruments - we're talking
> hardware, wire, etc.), a TSO'd part, a TC'd/STC'd part, a PMA'd part,
> or a part manufactured by the owner-operator. Otherwise it's not an
> aircraft part, and will require a field approval.'

A TSO isn't approval for isntallation in itself. While my IFR GPS meets
the TSO, I also have an STC to cover it's installation in my aircraft.
A TSO is just an statement that it meets certain technical standards
on which further approvals can be based.

>

[Michael]

> A TSO isn't approval for isntallation in itself.

That is true only for major repairs/alterations. For minor
repairs/alterations, a TSO is approval, since it constitutes data
acceptable to the administrator.

Michael

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:
>> A TSO isn't approval for isntallation in itself.
>
> That is true only for major repairs/alterations. For minor
> repairs/alterations, a TSO is approval, since it constitutes data
> acceptable to the administrator.
>

"Data acceptable to the administrator" isn't necessary for things
that aren't major alterations. That phrase comes from the
major alteration framework. The fact that it is a non-major
alteration implies you've used something consistant with the
original aircraft design. If the TSO helps you make that
decision great, but it's still not installation approval.

[[email protected]]

The way I understand the TSO process is that it is a "quality" process
in manufacturing. Kind of like ISO in the non FAA world.
It doesn't mean whether or not an item can be installed in a aircraft,
but that the manufacture of the part is according to a particular
process acceptable to the FAA.
I don't think that it makes any difference if the part can be or can't
be installed in an aircraft just because it has the TSO label.
It allows the FAA to be confident the part is acceptable for
installation if they approve it.

It's all clear as mud as I see it.

I think that you still need a STC or field approval to install a AM/FM
CD player whether its TSO'd or not, but the FAA won't have many
questions about the player if it is a TSO'd item.

Dave

Ron Natalie wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>>> A TSO isn't approval for isntallation in itself.
>>
>>
>> That is true only for major repairs/alterations. For minor
>> repairs/alterations, a TSO is approval, since it constitutes data
>> acceptable to the administrator.
>>
>
> "Data acceptable to the administrator" isn't necessary for things
> that aren't major alterations. That phrase comes from the
> major alteration framework. The fact that it is a non-major
> alteration implies you've used something consistant with the
> original aircraft design. If the TSO helps you make that
> decision great, but it's still not installation approval.

[TxSrv]

wrote:
> The way I understand the TSO process is that
> it is a "quality" process in manufacturing. Kind
> of like ISO in the non FAA world.

Technical Standard Order; a technical standard. If one
reads the TSO for transponders, it is FAA stating how the
transponder must perform to be compatible with FAA ATCRBS
systems, basically. It does not imply higher quality.

Fred F.

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message ...
> The way I understand the TSO process is that it is a "quality" process in
> manufacturing.

Hardly, the FAA could care less about quality. They simply want compliance
with some 50 year old out of date piece of paper.

[Gerry Caron]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Hardly, the FAA could care less about quality. They simply want
> compliance with some 50 year old out of date piece of paper.
>
It's obvious from that statement that you've never attempted to obtain a TSO
Authorization. A TSOA is both a design AND manufacturing authorization.
Not only do you have to show that the design meets the TSO, you must also
show that you can consistently manufacture the product IAW the design
documentation and that the finished product meets the production standards.

Meeting the manufacturing requirements involves conformity inspections of
finished product in addition to having a quality system of processes,
standards, and training to ensure that every product you ship meets the
standards. The MIDO approves your program and performs routine audits every
year or two. Fail an audit and you can lose your TSOA. At the very least,
your line will be shut down until you implement corrective actions and the
MIDO it signs off.

And while there are a few old TSOs like the one for sensitive altimeters
(which really haven't changed in 50 years), the majority of TSOs are less
than 15 years old. You should also consider that a major objective of TSOs
is ensuring interoperability (on the airspace side not the aircraft side --
AEEC and GAMA push for that) so constantly changing standards is not
necessarily a good thing.

Gerry

[Matt Barrow]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
.. .
> Horsefeathers. "I think" is a lousy substitute for fact. If you don't
> know, kindly keep your opinions to yourself.
>
> Jim
>

Need to get laid, Jim?

[Jules]

RST Engineering wrote:

If you don't
> know, kindly keep your opinions to yourself.
>
> Jim

Oh so rich!!!!

[Matt Barrow]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>> Need to get laid, Jim?

What so conveniently he snipped:

" Horsefeathers. "I think" is a lousy substitute for fact. If you
don't
know, kindly keep your opinions to yourself."
>>
>
> I'm getting as much as I can handle. Need to get smacked upside the head,
> Matt?

No, but you need it pretty badly. I'd say your daddy needed to give you
several, many years ago.

Keep your stupid comments to yourself, you netcop fascist (putting it
mildly).

[Matt Barrow]

"Jules" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> RST Engineering wrote:
>
> If you don't
>> know, kindly keep your opinions to yourself.
>>
>> Jim
>
> Oh so rich!!!!
>
That's Jim!

He needs to get bitch-slapped.